from the Diocese of Virgina

Province III Bishops Issue Statement of Support of Peter James Lee, Bishop of the Diocese of Virginia

On January 26, the Rt. Rev. David Colin Jones, Bishop Suffragan of the Diocese of Virginia, read a statement to the 212th Annual Council of the Diocese of Virginia signed by 16 bishops of Province III of the Episcopal Church supporting the Rt. Rev. Peter James Lee, Bishop of the Diocese of Virginia, and the diocesan Executive Board and Standing Committee for the decisions and actions taken concerning the congregations that have withdrawn from The Episcopal Church. The complete statement follows.

January 26, 2007

We the Bishops of Dioceses in Province III (the Middle Atlantic area) of The Episcopal Church commend and support our brother The Right Reverend Peter J. Lee, Bishop of Virginia, the Standing Committee and the Executive Committee of the Diocese of Virginia in their recent action and statement concerning several parishes within the Diocese of Virginia which have withdrawn from The Episcopal Church. We support completely these decisions necessitated by the Canons of our Church and morally responsible. Moreover, we commend Bishop Lee for the many ways over several years in which he tried to pastorally minister to, find appropriate compromises, and charitably respond to his detractors. We are proud to be his colleagues.

The Right Reverend Robert W. Ihloff, President of Province III, Bishop of Maryland
The Right Reverend Nathan D. Baxter, Bishop of Central Pennsylvania
The Right Reverend Wayne P. Wright, Bishop of Delaware
The Right Reverend James J. Shand, Bishop of Easton
The Right Reverend John L. Rabb, Bishop Suffragan of Maryland
The Right Reverend Robert D. Rowley, Bishop of North West Pennsylvania
The Right Reverend Charles E. Bennison, Bishop of Pennsylvania
The Right Reverend Frank Neff Powell, Bishop of Southern Virginia
The Right Reverend David C. Jones, Bishop Suffragan of Virginia
The Right Reverend John B. Chane, Bishop of Washington
The Right Reverend A. Theodore Eastman, Bishop of Maryland, Retired
The Right Reverend Jane Holmes Dixon, Bishop Suffragan of Washington, Retired
The Right Reverend William Michie Klusmeyer, Bishop of West Virginia
The Right Reverend Michael W. Creighton, Bishop of Central Pennsylvania, Retired
The Right Reverend Charles L. Longest, Bishop Suffragan of Maryland, Retired
The Right Reverend David K. Leighton, Bishop of Maryland Retired

The Diocese of Virginia has responded in court to claims regarding real and personal property made by 11 congregations where the majority membership has voted to leave The Episcopal Church but have not vacated or relinquished that property to the Diocese.

Click the continue reading tab to see the news release.

Read more »

This Washington Post article on the Very Rev. Shannon Johnston, newly-elected bishop of Virginia, gives me an opportunity to ask friends who consider themselves centrists, as Johnston does, what exactly a centrist is.

Take this passage:

"In a candidate questionnaire and in other comments about the role of gays and lesbians in the church, Johnston has been vague, if centrist. In a 2005 article posted on his church's Web site about the dispute, he wrote: 'I insist that the answer will not come from one of the two 'sides' but rather will be found in the Center.' "

Leaving aside the divination of the Center indicated by the use of the upper case c, let's assume we are arguing about the sum of 2+2. If I say 6, and you say 4, the answer is not 5. One of us is right and one of us is wrong. If I say the answer is 10, and you say the answer is 4, we would split the difference at 7. Which means that the more extreme my error, the further a certain sort of centrist moves in my direction.

I don't imagine that all centrists are difference splitters, but I don't really understand how they decide what they believe, or what they do when a divisive question requires a yes or no answer. Celibate or monogamous gay people--as a category, one can argue the merits of individuals--either are acceptable as ordained ministers of the Gospel in God's eyes, or they are not. You can certainly attempt to nuance your position by saying Yes, but... or No, but... Yes, but not now. No, but gay couples are welcome in all but leadership roles in our parishes. But when it comes to deciding what principle the Church or the Communion will adapt, only the Yes or the No really matter.

There is a second question, of course: Can I live in communion with people who disagree with me on the first question? Perhaps centrists are those who can answer the first question either way, but who are willing to answer the second question: Yes.

But I answer the second question Yes, and am regularly told that my ideas can be dismissed as leftist because I have answered the first question Yes as well. (Indeed, I identify myself as a liberal, in part because I think many who claim to be centrist are hiding their agendas for political advantage. Recent efforts on the House of Bishops and Deputies List to paint Ephraim Radner as a centrist fall into this category. Radner, a member of the Covenant Design Group, is affiliated with the Anglican Communion Institute, which has been associated with the Anglican Communion Network since its inception.)

So who are centrists? What do they believe and why do they believe it?

Many people who claim to be in the center strike me as people who don’t want to travel with the baggage of an opinion, and the attendant allies. I don’t have a problem with that, as long as those people don’t look down in a lordly fashion on us sweating partisans and suggest that we all just get over ourselves.

It is easier for me to understand, and to converse with leading figures on the Anglican right like Kendall Harmon and Matt Kennedy than with those who think that sitting out this struggle is a transcendent moral act. Perhaps because it seems to me more Christian to argue with someone--see the Council of Jerusalem, or any Church council, for that matter--than to look down on them.

So, if anyone who identifies themselves as a centrist can explain their philosophy to me, I would appreciate it.

(And for a good conversation on this issue, check out haligweorc, the blog of Derek the Anglican here.

By Maureen Shea
Wednesday, January 31, 2007

[Episcopal News Service] Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori joined five Christian, Jewish, and Muslim leaders from the National Interreligious Leadership Initiative for Peace in the Middle East (NILI) in a meeting with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice January 29 to discuss the Israeli/Palestinian situation. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns and Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom John Hanford IV also participated in the meeting.

"The timing was particularly important in light of Secretary Rice's meeting February 2 with the 'Quartet' -- the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations -- that is to be followed by talks between Israeli and Palestinian leaders," Jefferts Schori said. "Despite a very difficult year for Palestinians and Israelis, it is significant that 35 U.S. religious leaders, affiliated with more than two dozen Jewish, Christian and Muslim national organizations, are calling for the United States to make peace in the Middle East an urgent priority and to provide creative, determined leadership for building that peace."

Jefferts Schori was referring to the 35 religious leaders who wrote to Rice December 12 asking for a meeting with her to discuss the "urgent situation in the Middle East" and calling on the United States to make peace in the region an "urgent priority."

Read it all.

...there is an important meeting of the Primates of the Anglican Communion coming up in mid-February. The official release on the meeting from the Anglican Communion News Service is here.

The Living Church has been breaking a lot of news lately. Here is their latest:

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has been allotted two sessions of next month’s primates’ meeting to describe The Episcopal Church’s response to the Windsor Report.

Sessions on the “listening process,” the proposed Anglican Covenant, and the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Panel of Reference, as well as social and development issues are on the agenda for the Feb. 12-19 meeting to be held at a hotel near Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania, sources in London tell The Living Church.

Archbishop Peter Carnely, the former Primate of Australia and chairman of the Panel of Reference, will brief the primates and respond to criticism that the panel has been dilatory in its work. Established as a “matter of urgency” by the 2005 primates’ meeting, the panel has released recommendations on petitions received from the Diocese of Fort Worth and from traditionalist congregations in the Canadian Diocese of New Westminster. Petitions from the Dioceses of Florida and Lake Malawi are currently under review.

Read it all.

The BBC is reporting that British Prime Minister Tony Blair has decided not to grant Catholic adoption agencies an exemption from the UK's new anti-discrimination laws. Those agencies must choose between closing shop or accepting the new laws, which could require them to place children with gay couples.

I haven't followed this bill closely enough to have a firm opinion about it, but I haven't been impressed by the Church of England's involvement in the debate. Today, though, I am grateful for these comments by N. T. Wright, the noted scripture scholar who is the Bishop of Durham. They gave me quite a chuckle.

Wright had this to say about the new laws to Ruth Gledhill of The Times of London:

"This completely fails to take into account the views and beliefs of all those involved. The idea that New Labour - which has got every second thing wrong and is backtracking on extended drinking hours, is in a mess over this cash-for-peerages business, cannot keep all its prisons under control - the idea that New Labour can come up with a new morality which it forces on the Catholic Church after 2,000 years - I am sorry - this is amazing arrogance on the part of the Government."

As I say, I have no firm opinion on whether the the Church and the government could have reached some kind of compromise. But being called arrogant by N. T. Wright, is like being called ugly by Jabba the Hutt.

Here is why.

I was taken by the opening paragraph of this column from a New Mexico newspaper because I've used almost exactly the same words to describe certain people involved in the current controversey in the Episcopal Church.

Jeff Stevens of the Almagordo Daily News writes: It seems to me Republicans spend more time thinking about gay sex than any other group of people in the known world even more so than gay people trying to find other gay people with whom to have sex.

Which I guess is a good thing. The Living Church has the story.

Father Jake points out that Bishop Epting has a brand new blog. And if you read this particular entry, you will get a pretty good sense of where the bishop stands on the issues that will be under discussion. We can only hope he follows Paul's lead when he meets Rowam Williams.

Meanwhile, do read Mark Harris's thoughts on why the covenant design process is suddenly proceeding at breakneck speed.

I don't know about you, but I have a bad feeling about whose neck it is that is going to get broken.

The Diocese of Pittsburgh has posted the text of its request to the erroneously named Global South Primates for Alternative Pastoral Oversight (ALPO). The request was given to several of the primates who also serve on the board of Anglican Relief and Development at a meeting in Falls Church, Va. in November.

Whether this is all the diocese will produce to comply by the Wednesday deadline with a judge's order for expedited discovery in the case that Calvary Episcopal Church has brought against the dicoese remains to be seen. It may be that the diocese is making a show of putting out on its own what it was actually forced to produce by court order. Otherwise, why release it now?

Background information on that case is here.

I haven't had a chance to read the document yet, so I'd be interested in your take on what it says.

The Washington Post has a story suggesting the diocese may--just may--be on firmer legal ground in that state than the breakaway parishes.

The key paragraphs:

Martin Nussbaum, a Colorado lawyer who has represented the Roman Catholic Church and evangelical Protestant congregations but is not involved in the Episcopal Church dispute, said he believes the diocese holds the stronger legal position.

"The majority of rulings suggest that in the Episcopal Church, the secessionist congregations cannot take their stuff with them," he said.

Still, he added, there are enough inconsistencies in the way courts have handled such cases that congregational leaders are encouraged to roll the legal dice.

ENS is reporting that Archbishop Dirokpa Fidèle, Primate of the Province de L'Eglise Anglicane Du Congo (Anglican Church of Congo), just completed a visit to the Episcopal Church Center, January 22-23.

What follows are a few quotes about the relationship between the two provinces, but do read the entire story to get a sense of the great odds against which Archbishop Fidele is working.

Affirming the ongoing relationships between the Anglican Church of Congo and the Episcopal Church, Fidèle said, "We are not for division, we are for discussion and sharing ideas."

He explained that his province had previously released a statement in response to the Episcopal Church that "upholds biblical truth." But, he said, "if we have a brother here in America who is willing to help our people, I as archbishop cannot let people die. We will continue to collaborate with the Episcopal Church, especially around the issues of development."

He acknowledged that he looks forward to sitting at the table with Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori for the February 15-19 Primates Meeting in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, despite indications from some African Primates that they would boycott the meeting because of her presence.

The writings of Bishop Mdimi Mhogolo of Central Tanganyika in Tanzania has graced the blog twice previously. To read his most recent letter, click the continue reading tab. In it he explains why, despite the bitterly argued decision by the Tanzanian House of Bishops to the contrary, he is mantaining his relationships with the Episcopal Church.

A couple of excerpts:

"The issue of homosexuality with its various understandings is not only an ECUSA issue, but involves all of our development and mission partners. If one is realistic, the issue of homosexuality and their money affects all our partner organisations, Churches, missionary agencies, governments and secular organisations. We then ask ourselves, why should we single out ECUSA and treat it differently? We know that a substantial amount of money and funding that governments, Churches, and missionary societies, comes from gay and lesbian people. ....

We are not a closed Church where we reject some and welcome others. We are an open Church where even our enemies can find food, love, care and shelter. We always try to become like Jesus Christ our master, to everyone who comes into our home. The issue of homosexuality is not fundamental to the Christian faith, although many try to make it that way!! We would have become wiser if we had learned how the Roman Catholic Church, the Lutheran World Federation, the Presbyterian Church, the Reformed Churches and the Society of Friends are dealing with the issue. We are in a mess because we do not want to learn from other world Christian Communities!!! The source of our faith and mission in God is Jesus Christ. If someone has a different understanding on the essence of our faith, then we all should be alarmed. But as long as individual Episcopalians hold the one, holy, Apostolic and Catholic Faith, who am I to pass judgment now that they are not my brothers and sisters in Christ?...

We are also aware of the statement of the House of Bishops of the Anglican Church of Tanzania that expresses a severely impaired relationship with ECUSA, and that no money will be received by the Anglican Church of Tanzania from ECUSA from entities that condone homosexual practices. My understanding is that the statement of the House of Bishops, though it carries a lot of weight, it does not express the will and wishes of the whole Anglican Church of Tanzania. It is only when the other two Houses, namely the House of Laity and the House of Clergy are involved in the thinking and decision making that the statement becomes the whole Anglican Church of Tanzania."

Read more »

The Rev. Richard Helmer of the Caught by the Light blog is doing a wonderful job reporting on the Epiphany West conference at the Church Divinity School of the Pacific. I was especially taken by his summary of the talk by Dr. Jenny Plane Te Pa of New Zealand, a member of the committee that wrote the Windsor Report. Richard writes:

She expressed in a moving way how many provinces of the Anglican Communion still admire how The Episcopal Church organizes and carries out its mission, and articulated sadness at the way our province has been treated as of late:

how we have been, along with the Church of Canada, unfairly singled out and patronized in the present mess, and how our LGBT members have been scapegoated in overt and subtle ways
how several (male) leaders both inside and outside of the Episcopal Church have taken advantage of weaknesses in the Episcopal Church and Anglican structures to forward potentially schismatic agendas and vilify our church membership and leadership, including ++Katharine Jefferts Schori

how the Windsor Report's recommendations against cross-jurisdictional interference have been ignored while it has, at the same time, been used as a punitive instrument -- something Dr. Te Paa has clear reason to take personally
how in some quarters The Episcopal Church has been conflated with the worst of United States foreign policy, and the complexity of our context has not been properly understood or taken into account

how The Episcopal Church has shown enormous grace and restraint in voluntarily withdrawing from Anglican structures (i.e., the Anglican Consultative Council) at the request of the Primates, and has tolerated and taken care to provide room for internal dissent

And, most critically, she noted how historically marginalized peoples in the Anglican Communion have most identified with the challenges we in The Episcopal Church now face.

Williams "fostering schism," aide fears.

That's the headline on this story in the Sunday Telegraph concerning an email that Canon Kenneth Kearon, secretary general of the Anglican Consultative Council, sent to Louie Crew, founder of Integrity. (Background is here.)

I think the headline is a stretch. In his email, Kearon says that a recent letter in which Bishop Paul Marshall of Bethlehem was sharply critical of the archbishop was "accurate." But "fostering schism" is Marshall's term, not Kearon's. The Telegraph has put the words in his mouth.

That said, Kearon may indeed believe this. But I don't think the evidence is in. And while I am at it, why do they keep saying that we "appoint" our bishops?

We considered two resolutions relating to the Anglican Communion at the convention which concluded a few hours ago. This resolution passed:

On The Meeting of the Primates of the Anglican Communion
(submitted by the Reverend Dr. Francis H. Wade, Chair of the Diocesan Deputation to General Convention)

RESOLVED, that the One Hundred Twelfth Convention of the Diocese of Washington declares its respect for and support of the Most Reverend Katharine Jefferts Schori, the Twenty-Sixth Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church; and expresses its warm appreciation to the following Bishops from other nations for participating in her Service of Investiture held on November 4, 2006, at the Washington National Cathedral:

The Primate of Iglesia Anglicana de la region Central de America; The Primate of the Episcopal Anglican Church of Brazil; The Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada; The Primate of the Church of the Province of Southern Africa; The Primate of the Anglican Church of Mexico; and the Secretary General of the Anglican Communion;

The retired Primate of the Scottish Episcopal Church;

Bishops of the Anglican Church of Australia; the Scottish Episcopal Church; the Anglican Church of Canada; the Church of Pakistan; as well as others; and

The Archbishop of Canterbury; the Primate of the Anglican Church of Australia; and the Primate of the Anglican Communion in Japan (Nippon Sei Ko Kai) who sent representatives; and be it further

RESOLVED, that the Convention expresses its hope that in spite of reports that some of her peers will refuse to meet with her, all of the Primates will provide our world and our Church with an example by responding positively to our Lord’s desire that we be one as we work together to fulfill our common mission of witness and service; and be it further.
********************

Consideration of this resolution was postponed indefinitely, which seems to be our parliamentary custom when a resolution has no chance of passing:

Submitted by The Rev. Phillip C. Cato, Ph.D., Priest of the Diocese of Washington

RESOLVED, that the One Hundred Twelfth Convention of the Diocese of Washington express its extreme displeasure and firm disapproval of the action of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, in issuing an invitation to the Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh, the principal organizer and moderator of the Anglican Communion Network, which network seeks recognition as the “legitimate” expression of the Anglican Communion in the United States, and to the Bishop of Western Louisiana, to attend the meeting of Anglican Primates on February 14 in Tanzania., which invitation lends notorious credibility to the divisive efforts of Bishop Duncan, and diminishes the importance of the presence of our Presiding Bishop; and be it further

RESOLVED, that this Diocese calls upon the Presiding Bishop, the Most Reverend Katharine Jefferts Schori, and the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church, to form a commission to examine whether continued membership in the Anglican Communion is any longer beneficial to the core task of proclaiming the Gospel in this country.

Of the five or six people who spoke on the second resolution, only Dr. Cato spoke in its favor. A number of people told me privately that they thought the first resolution was punchless and the second one said what needed to be said. But none of them found their way to a microphone.

The Diocese of Washington is typically portrayed as a liberal diocese, which I think is fair. But I think we may also be thought of as an activist diocese, and I think that's not the case. For better and worse, we tend to endorse the values of the liberal establishment. Some days the emphasis falls on the first of those two words, and some days it falls on the second.

I seldom think that the resolutions are the most interesting part of a diocesan convention; nonetheless, they are worth reporting. We passed one on gender equity, one on studying the impact of slavery, one on immigration, one supporting the Millennium Development Goals, and one on the upcoming meeting of the Primates in February. The first four are lurking beneath the continue reading tab. The fifth one will appear in an item I will post in a few minutes.

The highlight of the convention were a presentation this morning by Diana Butler Bass on her research on church growth and vitality--( She doesn't speak from a text, so I am afraid you will have to wait for the special convention issue of the Washington Window to learn about her presentation.); and the speech given last night by the Rev. Stuart Kenworthy, rector of Christ Church, Georgetown in accepting the Bishop's Award. Stuart returned in August from serving as a military chaplain in Iraq. We hope to have that one online for you by the middle of next week.

Read more »

We have just concluded our diocesan convention. Bishop John Bryson Chane's address, which deals almost entirely with the life of our diocese, can be found here.

You will notice that about three-quarters of the way through the speech, he mentions a development that will cut into the time I can devote to this blog. But reinforcements are on the way. More on this in the days ahead.

ENS is reporting that: "The Anglican Communion's Covenant Design Group's report to the February meeting of the Communion's Primates will include a draft covenant, according to one of the two Episcopal Church members of the group. "

The representatives of two of the more liberal provinces Ireland and South Africa, were unable to attend. Given that, and the excerpt below, I think we have reason to be apprehensive:

[Kathy] Grieb [of Virginia Theological Seminary, a member of the Design Group] said the fact that the group's members from Ireland, South Africa and Ceylon could not be at the meeting was "unfortunate [because] it meant that the representation was unbalanced."

"Ceylon has just ordained women. South Africa has been through the whole apartheid experience and Ireland has struggled with religious conflict," Grieb said. "We could have used their experienced voices."

"There weren't very many of us to speak for the use of the covenant as binding the whole Communion together with different points of view represented in it," she said.

"The most-well-represented view was that the purpose of the covenant is preventative. According to that view, a covenant would prevent any significant change from happening in Church's doctrine and practice," she said. "Proponents of this view are eager to have a covenant in place as quickly as possible so that there will be procedures available to prevent any unwelcome innovations from their point of view."

"For some in our group, the voice that matters is the voice of the Primates," Grieb said. "The Anglican Communion, as important as the Primates are, is much bigger than the Primates. We need to hear the voices of women, of laity and of clergy. They are the Anglican Communion on the ground."

The Very Rev. Shannon S. Johnston seems to be on the verge of being elected the next bishop of Virginia.

Mark Harris has the story.

The Archbishop of Canterbury's latest work, How to Lose Friends and Alienate People is selling even better in the United Kingdom than it is within the Episcopal Church.

Having arrived at the mistaken conclusion that the can spend the good will and affection that Episcopalians once felt for him to buy a truce with the leaders of the Anglican opposition, Dr. Williams has recently arranged to alienate armies of his own church members by supporting the Roman Catholic Church in its efforts to win an exemption from a new law which prohibits discriminating against gay couples who want to adopt a child.

The reviews of this performance, in which he was joined by the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, are still coming in, but here is a sampling

Simon Barrow of Ekklesia writes: It would appear that the most senior figures in the English Catholic and Anglican churches have no real idea just how bad they look to a massive number of people right now. Living in something of an ecclesial cocoon, they express "shock" at the reaction to their determination to discriminate. (Read it all.)

Meanwhile, on the Guardian's blog, Stephen Bates writes: the archbishops have comprehensively lost this one from every point of view. No influence, no leadership, looking vaguely homophobic and wholly hypocritical and nothing to show for their johnny-come-lately last stand. (Read it all.)

Under Rowan Williams' leadership, the Anglican Communion is fast becoming known as the Church of the Human Rights Violation. He never spoke a public word against Archbishop Peter Akinola for supporting draconian anti-gay legislation in Nigeria. He maintains Bernard Malango of Central Africa on a panel of advisors, despite the fact that Malango is sheltering a bishop who has incited murder. Yet he has gone to great lengths to embarrass and undermine the Primate of our Church, which has as its great sin, "breaching the proper constraints of the bonds of affection" (per the Windsor Report) in ordaining a gay bishop who is not celibate.

Williams' willingness to pander to prejudice to keep the Anglican Communion intact and to remain in the good graces of Rome have damaged, perhaps irrevocably, his credibility as a moral leader. It has also compromised the witness of the Communion he leads, and given aid, comfort and momentum to the right wing organizations, such as the Bradley, Scaife and Ahmanson foundations, that are working to undermine our Church.

Surely, at some point, a few of our leaders will object to this behavior and insist that the archbishop hear them out. Surely they understand that in supporting the Anglican Communion we are complicit in the efforts to cripple our Church. Surely they understand the anxiety that the Archbishop is helping to perpetuate in this Church, how neatly that plays into the hands of those working against us, and how deeply it compromises our efforts to spread the Gospel.

Surely. Perhaps? Maybe? No?

The Living Church is reporting that the Archbishop of Canterbury has invited Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh, moderator of the Anglican Communion Network, to attend a special session of the Primates Meeting to be held on Wednesday February 14 in Tanzania. Duncan has accepted.

Another Episcopal bishop, as yet unnamed, will also receive an invitation, the magazine reports.

This is a great public relations victory for Duncan and the Network, and the archbishop has to be aware of that.

I will be eager to see whether bishops other than Bishop Paul Marshall of Bethlehem will find a voice now, or whether the silent purple legion that leads us will remain mum.

(Mark Harris has a few thoughts on the subject.)

On what may be a related matter, the Church Times is reporting that Canon Kenneth Kearon, secretary general of the Anglican Communion, is at odds with the archbishop over his treatment of the Episcopal Church. The article notes that Kearon sent the archbishop recent criticisms voiced by Bishop Marshall.

“Sadly, it’s very accurate, and is almost the script for a very difficult meeting I had with him last Wednesday,” Kearon wrote in an email to Integrity founder Louie Crew of the Diocese of Newark. “We discussed absolute limits of appeasement, and also how a future direction might be identified.”

"More cryptically," the story continues "he ends his email: 'Advisers (and sadly I’m not one of them) are at the heart of this.' "

The first ballot will be cast at 10:40 a. m. You can follow the voting on the diocesan Web site. You can read about the candidates here.

The Washington Post has asked members of its "On Faith" panel the following question:

As the presidential campaign begins to take shape, do you think it is appropriate and or important for the candidates to express their personal religious views and to use religious rhetoric? Why?

Bishop John Bryson Chane's response is currently featured in a link from the Post's homepage.

I am glad the Post has initiated the"On Faith" feature, but even in comparison to other online religion sites, the comments tend to stray off topic almost immediately as people ride their favorite hobby horses.

The odious anti-gay legislation backed by Anglican Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria appears to be in trouble. That is the upshot of a somewhat testy exchange between Outrage, a gay rights group in the UK, and Human Rights Watch. Read about it here.

The key paragraph in the HRW statement:

“While some action [on the bill] is still technically possible, the legislature is now winding down and readying for elections. They’re not likely to take up the bill unless something—such as an international campaign—- pushes them to. Moreover, after the elections there will no longer be a Christian President. This doesnn’t mean Nigeria’s leaders will be less homophobic, but it does mean that the influence of [Anglican] Archbishop Peter Akinola and the Christian Association of Nigeria, who have been the main forces pushing this bill, will be more or less moot.”

Update: CNN is doing a story on For the Bible Tells Me So tonight on Paula Zahn's show, which begins at 8 p. m. EST.

Richard, who keeps the Caught by the Light blog, is covering the Re-Visioning Anglicanism conference at the Church Divinity School of the Pacific in Berkeley. These two entries are worth reading.

Meanwhile, Susan Russell and the Admiral of Morality (who is, of course, not on the coast, but off the coast--although I don't know which one) have news and commentary on the Sundance Film Festival, which this year includes For the Bible Tells Me So, a documentary featuring Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire.

And from the middle of the country, Steve Waring offers an informative interview with the PB.

That's the headline in this morning's Guardian on a story by Stephen Bates, which begins:

If anyone knows what it is like to be a gay adopter of a child, it's the Rev Martin Reynolds. He's gay, in a long-term partnership ... and an ordained clergyman of the Anglican church in Wales. And for the last 15 years, he has been fostering a boy with severe behavioural difficulties.
Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, knows all about him too: he used to live next door when he was Archbishop of Wales. The boy played with his children. He knows that gay couples can provide a loving home for disadvantaged and at-risk children. Yet on Tuesday he wrote to the government demanding that religious adoption agencies should not have their consciences challenged by being required to consider gay couples as adopters.

Read it all.

And don't miss Andrew Brown's scathing essay on the gay adoption mess on the Guardian's blog, Comment is free. He writes:

"After all the years of child abuse scandals in the church, to see the Archbishop of Birmingham making his great stand for principle on the issue of gay adoption is to be reminded of Ronald Reagan redeeming the reputation of the American army after its defeat in Vietnam by invading Grenada. Are we to suppose that the Roman Catholic conscience, something even more flexible than Rowan Williams' backbone, could not work its way around these regulations if it wanted to?

None the less, I think the Catholic position in this is more honourable than that of the Church of England. Dr Sentamu's performance on the Today show yesterday morning was a breathtaking display of intellectual dishonesty. The most notable lie, I suppose, was his assertion that: "We are not wanting rights to discriminate." This is true only to the extent that the Church of England's own Children's Society does not in fact discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation, and will already now place children for adoption with gay couples. So Dr Sentamu is only struggling for the right of the Roman Catholic church to discriminate on his behalf. "

The article ends:

But in what sense can Dr Williams succeed? He is a man now for whom his allies despair, and whom his enemies may very well despise. He knows well, and has for years supported a gay couple - one of them a priest - who are raising a very difficult foster child. No one who knows him in person doubts his commitment to the wretched and outcast; no one who knows him through the media would ever suspect it. If you read his letter carefully, it might well be understood as a rebuke to the Roman Catholic church as much as to the government, and as an appeal for calm. But no one will read it like that. It is a piece of political theatre, in which he plays a part written by his enemies. In a fortnight's time, he will travel to Dar es Salaam, for a meeting of the heads of Anglican churches, many of whom would regard his friends as filthy, demonic perverts. Yet he has made it the central principle of his time in office not to upset such men. It is impossible not to pity him but difficult not to be shocked at his cowardice. "He has no friends," a gay friend of his said to me this week, "but we love him."

Steve Waring of The Living Church has just posted a story on Bishop John Bryson Chane's recent trip to Iran. The article is here. The bishop's column on his trip, which ran in the January issue of Washington Window, is here.

The article begins:

Washington Bishop John B. Chane participated in three days of talks with senior Iranian religious and political officials in the capital of Tehran as guests of Muhammad Khatami, the country’s former president, in early December. Later he spoke about the visit in person with President George W. Bush.

Bishop Chane was accompanied on the Dec. 5-7 visit by the Rt. Rev. Pierre W. Whalon, Bishop in Charge of the Convocation of American Churches in Europe; the Rev. Canon John Peterson, canon for global justice and reconciliation at Washington National Cathedral; and Evan Anderson, deputy director, International Reconciliation and Peacekeeping, Center for Global Justice and Reconciliation at the Cathedral College.

Bishop Chane spoke with President Bush prior to the start of the Jan. 2 memorial service for former President Gerald Ford. He said President Bush was very pleased the visit had been so productive.

The Associated Press has moved a nice story about the relationship between the Rev. Luis Leon, the rector of St. John's Episcopal Church on Lafayette Square, and President George W. Bush.

Update: See Stephen Bates's insightful blog entry on this issue.

I have avoided comment on the flap in the United Kingdom regarding the new Sexual Orientation Regulations recently passed by parliament, largely because I haven't followed the story closely enough to have an intelligent opinion. (I recommend this as a spiritual discipline.) But today I want to offer a few resources for those of you interested in following the thinking of the archbisops of Canterbury and York on this issue.

The archbishops yesterday wrote a letter to British Prime Minister Tony Blair which is available under the continue reading tab. In it, they back the Catholic Church's position that it should be exempt from a provision in the new law that makes it illegal for adoption agencies to refuse to place a child with a gay couple. Simon Sarmiento has full coverage at Thinking Anglicans.

Meanwhile, the Mad Priest "looks the other way and pretends he is not with them." And do have a look at the photo at the bottom of this entry.

I am not sure I buy the archbishops' argument. Suppose for the moment that the government had established the laws in question before the Catholic Church began operating adoption agencies. Would the Church's decision to open agencies mean that the laws had to be changed? I don't think so. The Church would be told that it doesn't have to involve itself in this ministry if complying with the laws of the land require it to compromise its beliefs. In this case, the fact that the Church is already in the adoption business certainly complicates matters from a pastoral perspective, but it doesn't bear on the principle.

That said, (he equivocated) I think you can also argue that the existence of adoption agencies that will place children with gay couples argues on behalf of a certain leeway for those that do not want to do so. But I don't know how you write "a certain leeway" into law.

For extra credit, give these questions some thought: Would the archbishops' line of reasoning make it possible for Catholic pharmacists to deny customers contraceptives? Would it allow, say, a nationwide chain of drugstores owned by a Catholic to refuse to stock condoms or provide contraceptives?

What do you make of the statement: "The rights of conscience cannot be made subject to legislation, however well meaning."

Read more »

Bishop Peter Lee of Virginia has inhibited 21 priests who left the Episcopal Church and placed themselves under the authority of other provinces in the Anglican Communion. The diocese's news release is beneath the "continue reading" tab. As Andrew Gerns explains here, the bishop really had not other choice.

"No one is saying that these are bad people, or even that their orders are suddenly invalidated," Andrew writes. "The process means that they cannot function as priests in the Episcopal Church. That's all. Since they don't want to be priests in the Episcopal Church, this should neither be a problem nor a hardship for them."

Read more »

The most annoying sentence of the week was written by Lee Siegel in an otherwise insightful, not to mention exhausive examination of the peculiar genius of Norman Mailer in Sunday's New York Times Book Review.

He writes:

"Early on, Mailer understood that in a democracy in which the most radically different types of people are thrown together, a harmonious encounter with “the other” is an American dream (e.g., the national obsession with the Relationship), the reality of which often becomes an American nightmare (e.g., popular culture’s obsession with crime). For the Brooklyn-raised, Jewish, middle-class Mailer, who once wrote about himself that there was “one personality he found absolutely insupportable — the nice Jewish boy from Brooklyn” — a perfect sense of the more extreme forms of otherness became artistic and intellectual mother’s milk.

No surprise, then, that Mailer’s previous novel, “The Gospel According to the Son,” in which he attempted to inhabit Jesus Christ, felt less like a creative vision than a head-butt against eternity. The material had a built-in obstruction to Mailer’s gift of sympathetic self-surrender: Jesus was a nice, middle-class Jewish boy from Nazareth. Now Mailer has returned to the right side, which is to say, the wrong side, of the tracks." (Italics mine.)

You needn't believe in the mystery of the Incarnation to find this characterization of Jesus preposterous. Jesus taught that the values of the Kingdom were the obverse of those of the world (Blessed are the poor. Woe to the rich.) He challenged the religious and imperial leaders of his day with a directness that got him killed, and he moved his followers so deeply that they continued to believe he was alive, even after his crucifixion.

Jesus was not "nice"; he was ferociously good.

It is hard to imagine that the Times would allow so uninformed a characterization to appear in its pages.

Brian Kaylor, keeper of the Christian communications blog For God's Sake Shut Up, points out that: "some 'Christian' organizations exist for no other reason than to attack other Christians. It is one thing to offer constructive criticism. But it is another thing to be so focused on attacking that one even twists the facts around just to make an attack. The latter seems to be the model that the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD) follows."

The most recent case in point, Brian writes, are the "odd word games" contained in a recent press release from IRD Anglican Action Director Ralph Webb about the situation in Virginia.

One thing you won't learn from the press release is that Webb is a former vestry member at Truro, one of the secessionist churches in Virginia. Other members of the IRD staff--which once shared office space with the American Anglican Council--attend Truro, too. That is their right, of course. But it is incumbent upon on honest writer to disclose that sort of thing.

After our diocesan convention this weekend, we hope to get around to updating our blog roll. When we do, the Mad Priest will have an honored place. Not only does he do a good news round-up from time to time, but he's got a way with headlines. Have a look at Church gay stuff, and pay special attention to the reported death threats made against Davis Mac-Iyalla, the leader of the gay Christian organization Changing Attitudes' Nigerian branch.

...apparently it is off.

Last month The Red Queen of the Anglican Communion, also known as Archbishop Henry Orombi of Uganda, wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury to inform him "that we cannot sit together with Katharine Jefferts Schori at the upcoming Primates Meeting in February."

The archbishop went ahead and invited Bishop Jefferts Schori to the meeting anyway. Now it appears that Orombi and his allies will show up after all. Father Jake has the details.

Bishop Ted Eastman preached at St. George's Church in Arlington, Va., yesterday, taking as his text, Luke 4:14-21 and the recent op-ed article by the Rev. John Yates, former rector of The Falls Church, and former parishioner Os Guinness. You will find the sermon beneath the continue reading tab.

An excerpt:

Following the example of Jesus, Christians are called to the never-ending task of revisioning. We Episcopalians who have no intention of leaving the church are, to be sure, revisionists. And so are dissenting and departing Episcopalians. Each entity continually attempts to interpret and apply scriptural and creedal authority to concrete situations in the culture that envelopes us. Such revisioning may lead to the revising of old notions, assumptions or understandings. Or it may not. It is interesting that both conservative and liberal Episcopalians have been led in the recent past to revision and revise their attitudes toward divorce and remarriage, once so narrowly proscribed by scripture and canon law.

Faithful people can emerge from revisioning processes with different – sometimes conflicting – perceptions. That should be no surprise, given the wide variety of human experiences. Nor should these differences be a barrier between Christians, as long as we all respect the spiritual gifts that God has given to each one of us. More than that, our various revisionings can, by the grace of God, challenge us all and help us all to move into deeper realms of the truth.

In order for there to be mutuality in revisioning, however, there must be a spirit of generosity which is ready to grant that other faithful individuals do take the authority of the Bible seriously, read it comprehensively not selectively, and apply what is revealed under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to the situation at hand. Of course, if any entity believes that it alone possesses the truth, then meaningful conversation is no longer possible.

Read more »

My favorite network TV show is facing fourth and long, says Ken Tucker of Entertainment Weekly.

Go figure. FNL may be the only show on television that treats religion authentically in the context of daily life. It is one of few willing to look issues of teen sexuality--and its consequences--in the eye, and it features perhaps the most realistically happy marriage on television. Yet it can't seem to find an audience.

Tucker writes:

In real life, Lights is the underdog series that a rah-rah cult audience and critics love, but one that can't find even a modest victory in the ratings. It consistently finished third in its original Tuesday-at-8 p.m. time period, and isn't doing much better in its new Wednesday-at-8 p.m. slot, still averaging around 6 million viewers. Indeed, the drama of whether NBC will commit to a second season of this gridiron soap opera is as awkward and tense as whether the wheelchair-bound former star quarterback Jason Street (Scott Porter) will break up with his devoted but conflicted cheerleader girlfriend Lyla Garrity (Minka Kelly). NBC Entertainment president Kevin Reilly professes love for the show but also cites ''the biggest disconnect'' he's ever experienced: ''People talk and write to me to say they love it, but not enough people watch. It's a sports show, but it's a relationship show; it's a soap, but it's got social issues. What makes it great makes it hard to market.''

Wednesdays at 8, Eastern. You don't have to like football to love the show. Give it a try.

Thanks to Susan Russell for pointing out this profile of Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori in the Stanford alumni magazine. An excerpt:

Jefferts Schori’s election “is very significant in what it says about the commitment and direction of the Episcopal Church,” says Harvard’s Ann D. Braude. The director of the women’s studies in religion program at Harvard Divinity School and author of Women and American Religion notes that 2006 was the 30th-anniversary year of the regular ordination of women in the Episcopal Church. “If you’re going to make a statement, she’s a great choice because she’s brilliant, she can rise to the occasion, and she’s incredibly brave. I think she will do an outstanding job in trying to mollify tensions with other Anglican churches.”

A tip of the hat to John B. Chilton, keeper of the New Virginia Church Man blog for pointing out an exchange in the Richmond Times-Dispatch on the upcoming legal battle for control of the secessionist churches in the Diocese of Virginia.

In the lead-off piece, Jim Oakes, senior warden of Truro makes no real attempt to justify the parishes' claims that they have a right to leave and take their properties, preferring instead to recount Truro's understanding of the Episcopal Church's sins.

The second piece is different. William Etherington, a Virginia lawyer with actual knowledge about the sort of litigation that may soon commence writes:

"Litigation probably will result favorably for the diocese, most likely not by affirmative decision, but rather by a civil court's refusal to accept subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute. Historically, civil courts have deferred to ecclesiastical authorities when disputes arose within hierarchical churches."

and:

"The Virginia Supreme Court - in its 1985 decision in Reid v. Gholson, reaffirmed in Cha v. Korean Presbyterian Church of Washington in 2001 - acknowledged the hierarchical-congregational distinction, holding that hierarchical churches are guided by a body of internally developed canon or ecclesiastical law. The decisions of such churches under their internal laws may be promulgated as matters of faith and considered entirely independent of civil authority. Persons who become members of such churches accept their internal rules and decisions of their tribunals.

For that reason, the court held that civil courts must treat a decision of a governing body or internal tribunal of a hierarchical church as an ecclesiastical determination constitutionally immune from judicial review. This is the Doctrine of Church Autonomy, derived from the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which provides, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ." The second of these clauses, the Free Exercise Clause, effectively prohibits the government and its agencies - i.e., its courts - from interfering with the internal operations and decisions of a hierarchical church. It also calls into question the constitutionality of the trustee ownership scheme of Title 57 of the Virginia Code.

The fountainhead of the Doctrine of Church Autonomy is Watson v. Jones, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1871. Watson established that property disputes within hierarchical churches should be decided not by testing which faction departed from traditional doctrine but by a rule of deference: Whenever questions of discipline, or faith, or ecclesiastical rule, custom, or law have been decided by the highest of these churches' judicatories to which the matter has been carried, the civil courts must accept such decisions as final and binding on them. More important, Watson recognized that the dispute there at issue - although sounding like a property dispute - was really about which group would select pastoral leaders to inculcate the faith among parishioners. Essentially, it was a request for a civil court to side with one theological faction over another. Watson reasoned that because civil courts are "incompetent judges of matters of faith, discipline, and doctrine," they ought to decline jurisdiction over such cases.

This is akin to the situation faced by the secessionist parishes. They seek to leave the Episcopal Church and its Diocese of Virginia to realign themselves with a diocese or archdiocese of another member of the greater Anglican Communion. This is a dispute that goes beyond property; it is one involving fundamental governance and matters of faith and doctrine. If civil courts decline to assume jurisdiction over this dispute (whether characterized as a property dispute or otherwise), the decision will then be left to the judicatories of the Episcopal Church, and the dispute will be resolved in favor of the diocese, which decision could then be enforced by the civil courts.

However, should the courts take jurisdiction, applying a neutral principles analysis, the result likely will be the same, since the secessionist parishes had, until December, accepted the canons and rules of the diocese and the Episcopal Church that are clear: Property is held for the benefit of the diocese and church, from which secessionist parishes cannot now unilaterally opt out. Their rejection of the canons of the diocese and church can be but prospective, not retroactive."

NAIROBI – Archbishop Desmond Tutu on Friday urged the African Anglican church to concentrate on the the continent's grim problems rather than on the row over gay clergy, and said persecuting gays was akin to racism.

Reuters has the story, which includes these quotes:

'I am deeply disturbed that in the face of some of the most horrendous problems facing Africa, we concentrate on 'what do I do in bed with whom',' the South African Nobel Laureate Tutu told a news conference in Nairobi.

'For one to penalise someone for their sexual orientation is the same as penalising someone for something they can do nothing about, like ethnicity or race. I cannot imagine persecuting a minority group which is already being persecuted.'

Courtesy of the Spirituality readings section of our Web site:

You ought to know that a person with good will can never lose God. Rather, it sometimes seems to his feelings that he loses him, and often he thinks that God has gone far away. What ought you to do then? Just what you did when you felt the greatest consolation; learn to do the same when you are in the greatest sorrow, and under all circumstances behave as you did then. There is no advice so good as to find God where one has left him; do so now, when you cannot find him, as you were doing when you had him; and in that way you will find him. But a good will never loses or seeks in vain for God. Many people say: “We have a good will,” but they do not have God’s will. They want to have their will and they want to teach our Lord that he should be doing this and that. That is not a good will. We ought to seek from God what is his very dearest will.

From the writings of Meister Eckhart, quoted in Wisdom of the Cloister: A Monastic Reader, edited by John Skinner (Image Books, 1999).

Pastor Dan at Street Prophets weighs in on the situation in the Diocese of Virginia:

It seems strange for a dyed-in-the-wool congregationalist such as myself to find himself arguing in favor of an episcopal polity. But the important thing here is that the episcopal system is the ground rules these people established, and they ought to live by them. I can certainly understand the dissatisfaction older members have with a denomination that they perceive to have left them, even sympathize with their predicament. I have no beef with them. But the pinheads who egg these things on (and trust me, there's a pinhead holding the cloaks of those taking potshots at the denomination - 80-somethings don't leave church without some help), now that's a different story. There's a special ring in hell reserved for people who would do this to a community for the sake of ideological purity. They may not have punched their grandmother in the gut, but they've done the next best thing. Swine. May God have mercy on them.

From Episcopal News Service

Presiding Bishop's statement following property decisions in Virginia

The Episcopal Church, in consultation with the Diocese of Virginia, regrets the recent votes by members of some congregations in Virginia to leave this Church. We wish to be clear, however, that while individuals have the right and privilege to depart or return at any time, congregations do not. Congregations exist because they are in communion with the bishop of a diocese, through recognition by diocesan governing bodies (diocesan synods, councils, or conventions). Congregations cannot unilaterally disestablish themselves or remove themselves from a diocese. In addition, by canon law, property of all sorts held by parishes is held and must be used for the mission of the Episcopal Church through diocesan bishops and governing bodies. As a Church, we cannot abrogate our interest in such property, as it is a fiduciary and moral duty to preserve such property for generations to come and the ministries to be served both now and in the future.

The recent decisions by some members of congregations in Virginia to leave the Episcopal Church and ally with the Anglican Church of Nigeria have no cognizance in our polity. Ancient precedent (from as early as the fourth century) in the Church requires bishops to respect diocesan boundaries, and to refrain from crossing into or acting officially in dioceses other than their own. As a Church we cannot and will not work to subvert that ancient precedent by facilitating the establishment of congregations which are purportedly responsible to bishops in other parts of the Anglican Communion within the diocesan boundaries of the Episcopal Church.

The Episcopal Church continues to seek reconciliation with those who have decided to leave this Church, and reminds all parties that our doors are open to any who wish to return.
Together with the Diocese of Virginia we seek to be clear about who we are as Episcopalians, and to continue to reach out in healing to this broken world. The overwhelming majority of the more than 7,600 congregations of the Episcopal Church are engaged in doing exactly that.

The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori
Presiding Bishop and Primate
The Episcopal Church

The judge in the case involving Calvary Episcopal Church and the Diocese of Pittsburgh, (background here) has ruled in favor of the church's motion for expedited discovery, and ordered the diocese to comply by January 31.

Our December 21 entry on this case said:

Calvary has requested an expedited discovery process to allow it to receive "equitable relief in advance of an international meeting of the Primates of the Anglican Communion scheduled for February 14-17, 2007 in Tanzania. On information and belief ... [that] Bishop Duncan and Primates of foreign countries are planning to use the occasion of the meeting... to promote Bishop Duncan's organiation and to implement actions directed at impairing the ability of Plaintiffs, TEC and TEC's constituents to maintain or recover their lawful interests in the Property."

If the use of the phrase "pledge of allegiance" can be authenticated, it could be important.

So maybe we will find something out about this pledge, and maybe we won't.

My thanks to the Rev. Jennifer McKenzie of The Reverend Mother blog for alerting me to this insightful posting over at Headrush. The author is a software developer, but what he is talking about can easily be applied to the issue of evangelism.

To wit:

If we believe in something, and we want others to share what we know can be a fun/meaningful experience, whether it's getting involved in our open source project, or joining our cause, or--yes--buying our book or software--we need to get past our "go kill yourself now" thing. If framing it with a new word/phrase helps, perhaps that's a better approach than trying to give the word "marketing" a massive makeover.

Remember -- when people are passionate about something, and in a state of flow--and you have contributed to that by helping users/members learn and grow and kick ass--these are some of the happiest moments in their lives. Trying to promote more of that is something we should feel wonderful about, not guilty.

The most poignant part of Bishop Peter Lee's letter to his diocese (posted in full in the item just below this one) gives readers a sense of the lengths he went to, and the personal cost he paid, to try to keep his diocese together.

It reads:

"For years diocesan leadership has worked to accommodate the views of the leadership of these churches. We have resisted attempts to deny them seat, voice and vote at the Annual Council when they stopped funding the budget of the Diocese. They have enjoyed access to our diocesan-managed medical and dental benefits. They have enjoyed other diocesan resources like grant funding for church planting, mission work and congregational development, Shrine Mont and Roslyn. I have met dozens of times with the leadership of these churches and with their counsel in an effort to find common ground on matters of theology. Three times I invited the retired Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey to conduct confirmations and receptions when my episcopal presence was either specifically refused or would have been a source of tension for the membership. I endured being told that the parents of confirmands would not want me to lay hands on their children at confirmation and I have received other personal attacks including death wishes in letters, reports and public statements.

I have tried to find a way forward in our dispute over property that would keep us from having to resort to civil courts. No longer am I convinced that such an outcome is possible, nor do I believe that such a move at this time is dishonorable. Rather, I believe as does the leadership of our Diocese and of our Church, that the actions taken to secure our property are consistent with our mission and with our fiduciary and moral obligations to the Church of our ancestors, to the church we serve today, and to the church of those who will follow us. "

Bishop Lee is both a sensitive pastor and a skillful diplomat. He deserved better than this.

The Executive Board of the Diocese of Virginia has released a statement published below. In addition, a letter to members of the diocese from Bishop Peter Lee can be found beneath the "continue reading" tab. Meanwhile, a moron with a can of spray paint defaced a door at Truro Church over the weekend.

The media release begins here:

Today, January 18, 2007, the Executive Board of the Diocese of Virginia took a step forward in preserving the mission and ministry of the Diocese and the Episcopal Church for current and future generations of Episcopalians and adopted a resolution concerning the property of 11 Episcopal Churches where a majority of members -- including the vestry and clergy -- have left The Episcopal Church but have not relinquished Church property and have continued to occupy the churches and use the property owned by the Diocese.

Specifically, the Executive Board declared the property of those churches – real and personal – to be abandoned in accordance with the Canons of the Diocese.

“All real and personal property held by or for the benefit of any Church or Mission within this Diocese is held in trust for The Episcopal Church and the Diocese of Virginia.” (Canon 15.1)

“No part of the real property of a Church, except abandoned property, shall be alienated, sold, exchanged, encumbered or otherwise transferred for any purpose without the consent of the congregation … [and] the Bishop, acting with the advice and consent of the Standing Committee of the Diocese.” (Canon 15.2)

Having declared the property abandoned for the purposes for which it is set aside, namely the mission of the Episcopal Church and the Diocese of Virginia, the Executive Board is required to protect the property, according to the Canons:

“[W]henever any property, real or personal, formerly owned or used by any congregation of the Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Virginia for any purpose for which religious congregations are authorized to hold property under the provisions of the Code of Virginia or any amendment thereof, has ceased to be so occupied or used by such congregation, so that the same may be regarded as abandoned property by the Executive Board, which shall have the authority to declare such property abandoned and shall have the authority to take charge and custody thereof, the Executive Board shall take such steps as may be necessary to transfer the property to the Bishop…” (Canon 15.3)

The unanimous decision by the Executive Board also authorizes the Bishop to take such steps as may be necessary to recover or secure such real and personal property.

In addition, the Standing Committee met today for its regular monthly meeting and took up the issue of the status of the clergy attached to these congregations. Following today’s meeting the Standing Committee will communicate its determination to the Bishop according to the Canons.

The 11 churches where property has been declared abandoned are:
Church of the Redeemer, Chantilly
Church of the Apostles, Fairfax
Church of the Epiphany, Herndon
Church of Our Saviour, Oatlands
Church of the Word, Gainesville
Potomac Falls Church, Sterling
St. Margaret’s, Woodbridge
St. Paul’s, Haymarket
St. Stephen’s, Heathsville
Truro, Fairfax
The Falls Church, Falls Church

Read more »

ENS has a story on a letter that Bonnie Anderson, president of the Episcopal Church's House of Deputies, has written to the Archbishop of Canterbury and his Panel of Reference, regarding its lightly researched recommendations regarding women's ordination in the Episcopal Church. You can find the letter beneath the "continue reading" tab.

The letter, dated January 12, appeared earlier today on the Stand Firm Web site, raising the question of how Matt Kennedy and company obtained it. I am not anti-leak. Few journalists are. And I don't begrudge SF its scoop. But journalists are equally interested in knowing where a leak came from. Whose purpose does the leak serve?

One question to be answered here is whether the leak came from the Panel itself. If so, provinces that correspond with the panel can henceforth expect that private correspondence might very well become public. Which, if the province is sensible, will mean that it will have not correspondence with the panel at all.

Read more »

The National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) is a coalition of psychologists who believe it's possible to "cure" homosexuality, a position rejected by the American Psychological Association and the American Medical Association. The organization, which is a favorite of the Anglican right, finds itself in the midst of controversy at the moment. A member of its Science Advisory Commitee published an essay on the organization's Web site arguing that Africans sold into slavery in the United States were in many instances better off than they had been at home.

The Southern Poverty Law Center has the story.

Former Senator John Danforth gives U. S. News and World Report his take on the recent events in the Episcopal Church.

In the current conflict within the Anglican Communion, Episcopalians are sometimes portrayed by those who opposed the Church's stance on women's rights and gay rights as captives of the cultural left. Here we have a former Republican senator, key supporter of Clarence Thomas, and former member of the Bush administration defending that Church against radicals to his right. Danforth is at home in the Episcopal Church. As was Gerald Ford. As is the first President Bush, who recently gave the keynote speech at the kick-off dinner for one of our parishes' capitol campaigns. As is the current President Bush, who invited one of our rectors to give the invocation at his second inauguration.

These men are nobody’s liberals. And neither Linda Lingle, the Republican governor of Hawaii, nor Virginia Congressman Frank R. Wolf will ever be mistaken for a left winger. Yet both have returned campaign contributions from Howard Ahmanson, sugar daddy of the Anglican right, rather than being publicly associated with his views on homosexuality, creationism and global warming.

There is a party in our current conflict that is both captive and tool of extremists and ideologues, but it is the group now affiliating itself with Archbishop Peter Akinola and his newly-forming Church of the Human Rights Violation.